ORDER

1.      The present First Appeal has been filed under Section 58(3) of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (“the Act”) against the Order dated 21.01.2020 passed by the West Bengal State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Kolkata, (“the State Commission”) in Consumer Complaint No.469 of 2019. The said complaint, filed by the Appellant, was dismissed by the State Commission, which ruled that the Appellant, being a private limited company, engaged in commercial activities, does not fall within the purview of a consumer under section 2(1)(d) of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The relevant excerpt of the impugned Order dated 21.01.2020 is provided below:

“Complainant is a private limited company and the commercial activities carried out by it cannot be for its earning livelihood by means of self-employment. Company has to act through somebody and the question of livelihood and self-employment under these circumstances would not arise. Company has judicious identity and it can be sued through a person. Company does the commercial activities for its shareholders. Question of earning livelihood by means of self-employment would not arise.

  Therefore, considering the facts and circumstances, we are constrained to hold that the complainant company cannot be categorised as ‘consumer’ as defined in Section 2 (1) (d) of the Act. Accordingly, it would be an idle parade to proceed with the complaint further.

       In view of the above, the complaint is rejected. However, this order will not prevent the complainant company to approach the appropriate Forum/Court in accordance with law.”

2.      Being aggrieved, the Complainant (Appellant herein) filed the instant Appeal No. 892 of 2020.

3.      Heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused material available on record.

4.      The only question to be determined is whether the Appellant qualifies as a 'consumer' within the scope of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, and Consumer Protection Act, 2019, based on the nature of the transactions and the activities carried out by the Appellant.

5.      Undisputedly, on 17.10.2013 the Appellant/Complainant Company had entered into an agreement for the sale of a flat measuring 2151 Sq Ft at Unit No. 19 LB in Block-DN, encompassing the ground and 1^st floor, inclusive of the right to park one car at the designated space on the ground floor in ‘Duplex Natura’ at Mouza-Bajetaraf, P.S.-Rajarhat, Dist- North 24 Parganas, within the local jurisdiction of Chandpur Gram Panchayat. The total consideration was Rs.66,68,100/- and the purpose of acquiring this property was to provide accommodation for Directors of the company, who would be responsible for overseeing the company's day-to-day operations. However, upon inquiry, the Appellant/ Complainant submitted a resolution of the company dated 06.08.2013, indicating that the apartment in question was intended to be purchased as Guest House for the company, exclusively for use of Directors and Staff as required.

6.      The learned Counsel for the Appellant/Complainant argued that that the ruling and approach adopted by the State Commission diverge from the legal precedent established by a larger bench of this Commission in the case of Crompton Greaves Ltd. & Ors. v. Daimler Chrysler India Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., recorded as CC No. 51 of 2016, decided on 08.07.2016. In this landmark case, the following legal principle was enunciated:

“11 a) If a car or any other goods are obtained or any services are hired or availed by a company for the use/personal use of its directors or employees, such a transaction does not amount to purchase of goods or hiring or availing of services for a commercial purpose, irrespective of whether the goods or services are used solely for the personal purposes of the directors or employees of the company or they are used primarily for the use of the directors or employees of the company and incidentally for the purposes of the company.”

7.      The learned Counsel for the Petitio